The IPCC has just issued its report into the Metropolitan Police's handling of the aftermath of the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. It seems that Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman is going to carry the can for the catastrophic way in which the Met handled the media after the incident.It is clear that Hayman made mistakes, but surely the can should be carried by the man on whose desk the buck stops - Sir Ian Blair. It is said that Sir Ian was failed by his staff and his advisers. I would submit that it is he who failed them.
There will be many who will say that it is difficult to see how Andy Hayman can remain in his post after this report. On a personal level I feel very sorry for him. He was the Chief Constable in Norfolk when I was the candidate there. He was appointed Assistant Commissioner at the Met in February 2005, only five months before the de Menezes shooting. I had several meeting with Hayman and found him to be hugely impressive and as straight as a dye. He stands accused of giving two different briefings to the press within hours of each other.
I hate to agree with Ken Livingstone, but when he described Andy Hayman as a first class police officer this morning, he was right. I wish I could say the same for Sir Ian Blair, whose ego knows no bounds. That ego is what maybe prevented his staff from telling him the full horror of what was unfolding. It is he who should be resigning, not Hayman.
50 comments:
LISTEN UP DALE !
I come here to disagree , to comment and interact how the hell am I supposed to do anyhting of the sort when you say things that noone can possibly have any other view upon. I agree , you are right , how right you are .
Tsk
In the q and a.s after the report, it was interesting to hear the journalists from the Sun and the Mirror toeing the party line and preparing the defence, just to make sure there is little comeback for the government.
The BBC as usual have assumed total guilt for the police, even before the report.
They have given up even pretending to be impartial now. Its only a question of time before it loses its licence to extort money from us.
I distinctly remember Sir Ian Blair at HIS press conference on the afternoon, (maybe 3pm*) of the shooting appealing for "rumours tthat were circulating" to be ignored and telling everybody to calm down.
I turned to my cousin who was watching with me at the time and said "sounds like they shot the wrong man".
What did the Commissioner know and when did he know it?
Its time for the other Blair to go.
*Surely both Sky and the BBC have the tapes.
>Wrinkled Weasel
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6927140.stm
Looks like strait reporting to me, much more clear and even handed than quite a lot of the newsprint mob. is it you that have assumed guilt? Can it be only a question of time before you lose your licence to spread FUD?
Can't disagree Iain. I did rate Ian Blair quite highly - he's much more of a thinking person's copper than some who have occupied that post - but he's had more lives than the proverbial cat.
I realise it's fashionable to call for the head of the guy at the top whenever something goes wrong in an organisation, but in this case the inquiry into 'who said what when' is in progress. Hopefully when the facts are known, then people can start calling for resignations.
Your blog post acknowledges that you dont know the facts (in a kind of mealy mouthed style) but you then go with a 100% certain call for Blair's resignation anyway.
Fairly rubbish.
I also feel Andy Hayman got the short straw here - 5-months is no time in position to shoulder this blame!
However, what about that other raid he was responsible for in East London - weren't those two also innocent (notwithstanding the bundles of cash stashed away in their home).
I take the view that we only hear about our failures and not about the many successes against terrorism.
I hope Andy Hayman is not irreversibly stuffed by this and that Blair#2 goes ASAP.
ST
For a start, Mr Kennick, where does it mention that Menezes was an illegal immigrant?
I would have thought that that had a material impact on police procedures, given that Menezes may well have acted in the mistaken belief he was being lifted for immigration offenses, and that his presence in this country was not only illegal, it was accordingly impossible for the police to check his credentials.
Andy Tighe, on News 24 this morning, and the studio pretty people were acting as if the report was a clear case of police complicity in a conspiracy.
The BBC pursues its bias by stealth, its principle technique is omission, (hence the failure to point out Menezes illegal status) making it very difficult for charges of bias to be brought, but if you believe that the BBC is above reproach, that is fine by me. I, and many others who know a lot more about it than you do, having worked there, know the truth.
Mr uncalled for
As Lord Carrington would doubtless agree, there are some circumstances where it appropriate for the head of an organisation to take responsibility for a policy or operational failure even it is not their fault. The death of a completely innocent man in a botched anti-terrorist operation is one such instance.
So we are asked to believe that the top policeman in the met did not have an inkling about something that was common knowledge amongst direct reports and other lower ranked police officers...
With such powers of detection how, exactly, did he come to ever be in such a senior role in the first place? In fact any top manager in industry wouldn't last five minutes without knowing what exactly was going on within his reporting structure.
Sorry but the squirming and obvious discomfort of the IPPC spokeswoman when asked direct questions about Blair spoke volumes to me.
What the hell are blabbing on about Iain. For years now the Tories and the supporters have been gunning for Ian Blair. And now when he is cleared of any wrong doing you still persist chanting your ludicrous anti Ian Blair mantra.
Read the report you morons before throwing your feeble stones. I’m sure Hayman is a sound copper, but on the day of the shooting he totally fecked up. He “”KNEW”” that the deceased was NOT one of the July 21st bombers, but still released a press communication, written by himself, stating that “ it was not clear if the deceased was one of the four wanted bombers from the previous day”. Hayman KNEW this was UNTRUE and had not told this to Ian Blair. Hayman chose to mislead the public by his actions. Why he did this, we probably will never know.
This second investigation follows allegations from the family of Mr de Menezes that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Ian Blair, and others had knowingly made public inaccurate information or failed to correct inaccurate information placed into the public arena. Hayman DID knowingly make inaccurate information public. END OF !!!!!!...
Harping on about Ian Blair is just being childish
Ian Blair was never going to get the blame just like no one got prosecuted for cash for honours, that's just the way it is.
Wrinkled Weasel said...
For a start, Mr Kennick, where does it mention that Menezes was an illegal immigrant?
August 02, 2007 1:47 PM
Jesus Christ… what is wrong you Tory morons. If you are going to make a comment, have the courtesy to at least read the Introduction or Conclusions of the Report.
The report remit was as follows
Second investigation following allegations from the family of Mr de Menezes that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Ian Blair, and others had knowingly made public inaccurate information or failed to correct inaccurate information placed into the public arena.
OK Wrinkled Weasel, nothing to do with the deceased nationality, but what do I expect from you lot, a report comes out, you start harping on about migrates, bias at the BBC and calling for the head of the police force who has just been cleared. Feckin Typical Blue Noses
Jim, I am not and never have been a Tory.
Facts are facts. Menezies status as an illegal immigrant is salient.
It is also the case that had this happened in Rio, you would not have gotten all the hand wringing and posturing:
According to Amnesty:
"Thousands of people, predominantly young, poor, black or mixed-race males, were killed in (in Brazil) confrontations with the police, often in situations described officially as “resistance followed by death”. Few if any of these were fully investigated."
I would have thought we come off rather well by comparison, and I feel outraged that the Brazilian government sought to make such capital out of the case.
Calling people names really only belittles the name caller. Really you should eff off until you find some manners and some intelligence.
Iain, you are totally correct on this one.
Besides having a brain AND a heart, you are one who is the human face of the Tory Party. Unfortunately, you are surrounded by many whose defense of the indefensible shows how profoundly they lack these qualities.
"Sir Ian Blair's ego knows to bounds" - has he got his own blog now then? Joke.
The problem is that IPCC is made up of lefties and ex anti police activists.The police will never have a fair hearing with them. It was a terible mistake but it must be viewed at what had happened at that time.
The police work in difficult and in this case impossible circumstances. It is up to all of us to support the police even when things go wrong.
This was murder plain and simple.
Our armed Police are hysterical drama queens who inhabit a fantasy world, where they get to dress up like darth vader and pretend that they are SAS.
No doubt I will be attacked with "what do you know"
Well I know plenty
, beyond that I shall say no more.
Iain: It goes with the name "Blair"! It seems another good man is about to bite the dust for this mendacious excuse for a commissioner! The question for ALL is: How is a reversal to be obtained, so that Joe Public has "ANY" confidence in the "Police Service" at all. Just consider one small but significant fact; the vast majority of those serving are products of "comprehensive education".
Jim
Read the report you morons ...(you say)
Jesus Christ… what is wrong you Tory morons...
Have you discovered a word Jim? Pretty soon you will have something called a vocabulary but I won’t hold my breath .You have missed the point . The culture of the Met has been politicised under the Labour Government to the point where , for example , their stats on crime are routinely dismissed as invention in the same way the Governments immigration fictions are.. The Met is now in serious trouble . An average of thee weeks a year off sick tells me all I need to know and knee jerk self preservation is symptomatic of a pattern for which you cannot hold one officer responsible .
Liberal reformers in the 1970s decided that very occasional rough justice couldn't be tolerated any more, pretending as they did so that the British police were an instrument of repression, and pretending that a series of untypical cases were symptoms of a general disease in the force.
They wanted , as usual , a perfect society, in which the police would always be absolutely fair and open to scrutiny, and would never rough anyone up. The result? the feeble, form-filling Crime Reporting Service (the great Auberon Waugh first used this expression many years ago) .
Blair like his namesake was not responsible for this development especially but he is exactly the sort of plausible deniability trader that will thrive in the new blue bureaucracy and he has allowed it to worsen
This is the reason that underlies the frustration many will feel that a relatively junior man carries the can for the failure of yet another institution . The Liberals will be happy that it is all “ scrutinised”, the big boys keep their empires and the whole rotten edifice continues to crumble .
Still why would you care , you have your “Report” , you can chirrup on about “informed “ you are . You strike me as the sort of prattling imbecile that would make a tidy living filling in forms (.Constable Jim has a ring about it dosn`t it (minus a syllable or two)
sorry, completely OT
yet another eastern european country is going to move to a flat tax system:
Bulgaria flat tax - plans to introduce it in 2008. 10% rate.
i really dont understand why the Tories are *not* pushing hard on this one. we're steadily losing our competitive edge.
Besides having a brain AND a heart
Oh jesus where are we now Oz ? The tragedy continues
Reminds me of Charles Moore's take on the 'cash for honours' investigation.
".. On his [Ian Blair's] watch, more Londoners had been killed than in any terrorist incident ever. He could not now rely on the total support of Number 10.
A police investigation of the Prime Minister and his cronies was a guarantee of Sir Ian's job security. "
JIM August 02, 2007 2:09 PM
"Jesus Christ… what is wrong you Tory morons. "
and
"Feckin Typical Blue Noses"
Bravely spoken - as you hide behind an anonymous login.
If you are going to be offensive have the guts to identify yourself
Why is Windsor Tripehound your real name
Shall I tell you what is offensive Windsor Tripehound. A blogger who openly acknowledges that he doesn’t know the facts, but still demands with a 100% certainty that Ian Blair should resign. If you read the report you can plainly see that Hayman was solely at fault. This preoccupation with trying to down Ian Blair makes you look childish. Is it just because he has the same name as Tony.
Over time I have read on this blog, Tory posters have openly wished for non Tory MPS to die, come a cropper with a combine harvester, catch some horrid disease, all manner of nasty insidious remarks. But as soon as someone has the nerve to use the word “moron” you all take the moral high ground. How typical you all really are.
It would all be a lot simpler if the Police, Fire, etc. were accountable directly to the Mayor.
Let the elected Mayor decide on his strategy and personnel, and let him be judged by the results. Who appoints senior Met officers anyway?
Why is Windsor Tripehound your real name
a) I'm not being gratuitously offensive,
and
b) I can be contacted via my profile
Regarding Sir Ian Blair, there used to be a principle in public life that in the event of a major error (which this case clearly is, to put it mildly) the man at the top took the rap regardless of whether he was responsible or even new about it.
I guess the Crichel Down affair was before your time?
Oops!
"...knew about it"
If the man at the top has to go because of misleading statements put out by his minions then DC better get his coat. The guff put out recently about a Mr Lit's progress towards a Parliamentary seat was clearly not 100% accurate. Time for an enquiry into who knew what and when perhaps...
Here is a link to the report; Iain hasn’t bothered to put it on his main page as he has already chosen to go down the “Grassy Knoll” avenue.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/
02_08_07_ipcc_stockwell.pdf
Following the shooting of Mr de Menezes, Hayman had a responsibility to keep Ian Blair informed and stated that he used his judgement to decide whether or not that was necessary. He briefed him, and senior colleagues at a Management Board sub-meeting, but had already told the Crime Reporters Association (CRA) a totally different story. Hat is what this whole investigation is about.
Jim, what are you seventeen ..eighteen ? You appear to understand nuanced English utterance at a level appropriate to a lift. You have not understood Iain`s point at all , you have not understood the strict stanrdards of politeness expected here and moreover you are a queeny anus faced imbecilic reason to emigrate already.
Jim said:
"Read the report you morons before throwing your feeble stones. I’m sure Hayman is a sound copper, but on the day of the shooting he totally fecked up. He “”KNEW”” that the deceased was NOT one of the July 21st bombers, but still released a press communication, written by himself, stating that “ it was not clear if the deceased was one of the four wanted bombers from the previous day”. Hayman KNEW this was UNTRUE and had not told this to Ian Blair. Hayman chose to mislead the public by his actions"
I will repeat
I distinctly remember that Blair had his own press conference on the pm of the shooting saying that people should "ignore rumours that were circulating" and people should calm down.
What did the Commissioner know and when did he know it?
He told the Police complaints committee that he did not know until the following day. Yet he was appealing for people to ignore rumours to the contrary on the pm of the shooting.
Someone at the BBC/sky should get out the tapes of this.
The telling thing on the day was that Tony Blair made NO comment whatsoever all day. - If he knew his namesake must have known as well.
Hitch:-
"Our armed Police are hysterical drama queens"
Have you been in the forefront of operations, in the middle of an unprecedented terror alert? Have you understood what it means to have to confront somebody who might blow himself and you to pieces when challenged? Have you forgotten Sharon Beshenivsky already?
Don't you agree that there might have been a bit of adrenaline pumping around?
Do you really think that our police engage in murder?
I hope you will think again and I hope this has nothing to do with your personal experience being behind bars.
The police can't say boo to anybody ethnic these days without going before a tribunal. Just one more turn of the screw and they will only be able to arrest white middle class men for low-level white collar crimes. A bit ironic, that, isn't it?
This country is corrupt at every single level. Our lords and masters get away with everything scot-free because of who they are while their underlings have to carry the can as scapegoats.
That is the very worst type of tyranny and injustice. I should know because I've been in that position myself at university.
Jim: "If you read the report you can plainly see that Hayman was solely at fault".
And your reason for acceptance of the Report without demurr is?
Some, myself included, might just wonder at the content and the reactions of the authors at the subsequent 'press conference'. The Report leaves several questions unanswered whilst failing to provide real evidence for many of its assertions.
Not being too paranoid here, but it's a remarkably convenient choice of scapegoat...
I hope this has nothing to do with your personal experience being behind bars.
The experience was a savage one for a tender youth and what he really can`t live with is that he enjoyed it...
Wrinkled weasel: "a bit of adrenaline pumping around".
And that's a perfectly good excuse for blowing an innocent man away, for persistently misleading and lying to the public who actually employ these ferocious and mindless robocops? Yes indeed.
These people are supposed to be highly trained officers who are tasked with dealing with the unknown and dangerous. If they can't hack it then they should hang up their gun belts.
As to their incredibly inept bosses, a little less preening in front of the cameras and playing to the gallery, and a great deal more common sense and professionalism, would go a long, long way.
Chuck. I can see that opinions have polarised here, but can you name me another country in the world where you would rather be staring down the barrel of a police revolver, in similar circumstances?
Certainly not Mr Menezes home country, that's for certain.
Wrinkled Weasel:
Isn't that the whole point? Why should we be staring down the barrel of any police weapon whilst going about our daily business. I believe that the wholesale issuing and display of arms following the bombings or attempted bombings in London led to a particularly gung-ho attitude on the part of some cops. That in turn led to the deliberate killing of this innocent young man. Regrettably cool judgement and careful supervision were entirely absent on that day. I have no reason to believe that the police hysteria has subsided, quite the reverse. Hence the outrageous demands of such trade unions or political lobby groups such as ACPO.
And anyway, the cops in the Scandinavian countries tend to be a lot less trigger-happy.
No, I'm sorry, whilst I appreciate the need to meet force with force, there's a hell of a difference between that and what happened in Stockwell and Forest Gate etc.
My real concern is that police attitudes and actions are largely condoned and vociferously supported by those who have little overall perspective of the effects on society. Worse, the cops themselves seem to believe in large measure that they administer the law. They do not. It is the courts who do that. The police role is to apprehend and bring the accused to court. True, it is part of their function to prevent lawbreaking, but that does not include judicial killing or any other violence to the person.
However the purpose of 'Stockwell 2' was - apparently - to examine the actions of the police in the aftermath of the shooting. One should recall that Stockwell was in police control for many hours after the incident. They had plenty of time to, for example, remove and mislay video information and to concoct a position. It's clear that is exactly what happened. Ian Blair should now either fire some of his officers or do the decent and honourable thing and proffer his resignation. Neither of these two things will happen, of course, because none of the officers involved has any shame or personal integrity. These people are mere state employees, apparatchiks. The concept of service to the public is now history.
Mr Weasel
In answer to your questions
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
And no, my own brush with the law has not coloured my judgement.
The metropolitan police are trigger happy, that is a fact.
I am not a fan of the police. I have had experience of their internal workings and I sort of have an idea of how the organization works. It is very regimented and their are no independent thinkers. It works as a whole. Intellectuals always leave before they are able to make a difference. I know that.
Hitch. If you have truly been involved in serious gun type stuff I defer to you. I have not.
I also have no inside knowledge of this.
But.
In context.. we were in the middle of a unique an novel assault on our way of life. What could the police have done to make the outcome different? I really want to know.
jim "If you read the report you can plainly see that Hayman was solely at fault."
That's what the report says and what we're s'posed to swallow but some of us older hands are a bit suspicious of official reports these days, can't think why !
Wrinkled Weasel: "In context.. we were in the middle of a unique an novel assault on our way of life. What could the police have done to make the outcome different? I really want to know."
Let's just recall that this debate is about Stockwell 2. Stockwell 1 is another discussion altogether. But to answer your question in the context of Stockwell 2, the police should not have sought to deceive and manipulate the press and public opinion. The Report makes it abundantly clear that there was (is) a mindset within the 'service' to concern itself with 'the story' rather than the job.
Time and again there are references to how things should be worded to place them in a positive light. Just as one small example, a press release late on 22 July (the date of the shooting): "it is not yet clear whether he is one of the four people who attempted to cause explosions" rather than "we do not know the identity of the man who was shot by armed officers" - a clear example of the deliberate choice of positive spin. There are many others.
Read all of the 142 page document - as I have - and draw your own conclusions.
Incidentally it's also clear that the IPCC chose not to pursue some lines of inquiry, but so be it.
I feel like I am coming over all queer, it's the second time that I find myself in agreement with the hitch.
It is not a good idea to have a shoot first and ask questions after policy.
The police knew within minutes that they had shot and killed the wrong man. One of their first acts is to search the pockets of the victim, and this would have provided a wallet with ID and perhaps even a passport.
Ian Blair's defence appears to be I lied to you because I was lied to. He knew full well when he did the early press conference that Jean Charles de Menezes was not one of the suspects.
It was not that long ago that Ian Blair was caught out lying about his role in the Balcombe Street shooting.
From the report, it appears that everyone and his dog in the Met. knew fairly quickly on the day of the shooting that the man killed was not a terrorist; everyone EXCEPT the Commissioner we are asked to believe.
People in his private office knew, but he didn't.
Is this at all believable?
Does the Commissioner exist in some kind of private bubble, which no sound penetrates? Does he not really exist at all in human form, but is removed from a cupboard and plugged into the mains when there's a Press Conference to attend?
What kind of "management" - obviously leadership isn't on the agenda - does Sir Ian Blair practise whereby he has no idea what is going on in his own office, not to mention the Force?
His interpersonal skills must be that of a man who couldn't persuade others to follow him to the bar if he offered to pay.
He should be resigning if he didn't know, not if he did.
Post a Comment